> On Mar 8, 2017, at 14:39, Gleb Smirnoff <gleb...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:57:32PM -0800, Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya) wrote: > N> > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:00:30AM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: > N> > A> On 08/03/2017 00:17, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > N> > A> > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:43:49PM +0000, Andriy Gapon wrote: > N> > A> > A> Author: avg > N> > A> > A> Date: Tue Mar 7 15:43:49 2017 > N> > A> > A> New Revision: 314862 > N> > A> > A> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/314862 > N> > A> > A> > N> > A> > A> Log: > N> > A> > A> qlxgbe: add GCC_MS_EXTENSIONS to CFLAGS to make old base GCC > happy > N> > A> > A> > N> > A> > A> The module uses unnamed structure and union fields and base > GCC in > N> > A> > A> stable/10 doesn't like it. > N> > A> > A> I think that that is a C11 feature, so it is courteous of more > modern > N> > A> > A> compilers to not complain about it when compiling in C99 mode. > N> > A> > > N> > A> > There are a lot of code in kernel, that uses anonymous structs and > unions. > N> > A> > This feature is enabled globally. Why does this module need special > treatment? > N> > A> > N> > A> That's a good question and I don't have a good answer to it. > N> > A> All I can say is that a GCC build of GENERIC and modules failed in > that fashion > N> > A> only for this module (in stable/10). > N> > A> Maybe I described the problem incorrectly. Then, a proper > explanation is welcome. > N> > > N> > In head this is fixed properly: > N> > > N> > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=278913 > N> > > N> > Can you please move your fix to stable/10 and revert it in head? > N> > N> I understand there might be conflicts, but wouldn’t it be better to revert > and MFC the change you committed to ^/head (which is already in ^/stable/11) > to ^/stable/10? > > Could be. But I intentionally avoided MFCing it back in 2015, in my humble > opinion changing global compilation flags is something not for a stable > branch. I defintely won't go for it, but anybody else welcome :)
Looking at the number of changed makefilea/drivers again, I agree with your discretion, but I do wonder if some of the failures on ^/stable/10 are caused by this lack of support (on 2nd tier platforms like arm). It makes it ever so important for people backporting changes to be careful... Also, any changes avg@ makes should be backported to ^/stable9 because the driver was backported there (and because clang isn't in the source tree there IIRC -- I don't remember exactly since I haven't used 9.x for 6+ months). Thanks, -Ngie _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"